Not based on anything said or done by its most exteme members, but going by polls of Tea Partiers in general:

Quote:

An October 2010 Washington Post canvass of local Tea Party organizers found 99% said "concern about the economy" was an "important factor".[21] Polls have also examined Tea Party supporters' views on race and racial politics. The University of Washington poll of registered voters in Washington State found that 74% of Tea Party supporters agreed with the statement "[w]hile equal opportunity for blacks and minorities to succeed is important, it's not really the government's job to guarantee it", while a CBS/New York Times poll found that 25% think that the administration favors blacks over whites, compared with just 11% of the general public, and that they are more likely to believe Obama was born outside the United States.[85][91][92] A seven state study conducted from the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality found that Tea Party movement supporters within those states were "more likely to be racially resentful" than the population as a whole, even when controlling for partisanship and ideology.[93][94] Of white poll respondents who strongly approve of the Tea Party, only 35% believe that blacks are hard-working, compared to 55% of those strongly opposed to the Tea Party, and 40% of all respondents.[95][96] However, analysis done by ABC News' Polling Unit found that views on race "are not significant predictors of support for the Tea Party movement" because they are typical of whites who are very conservative.[97][98]

Now, that might not be the same portrait as we would get from a poll of actual White Nationalists, but the difference is in degree, not in kind.

Now, that might not be the same portrait as we would get from a poll of actual White Nationalists, but the difference is in degree, not in kind.

is contradicted by this:

Quote:

However, analysis done by ABC News' Polling Unit found that views on race "are not significant predictors of support for the Tea Party movement" because they are typical of whites who are very conservative.

If you wish to assert, (as I know a number of posters do), that conservative whites are racist per se, then you can get away with claiming Tea Party members, as typical white conservatives seem to have racist tendencies. However, if we find a poll of blacks that shows such views reversed toward whites, (that whites have privileges not accorded blacks, that political process favors whites, that hiring practices favor whites, etc.), then you should be prepared to also declare that blacks are racist.

From my perspective, the poll results shown say nothing about racism. They demonstrate a bit of ignorance and they demonstrate a certain fear of the unknown, (or fear of those they do not know), but not racism. Opposing government intervention is libertarian, not racist, particularly when it accompaies a statement that everyone is still entitled to the same rights. The only poll result that approached being "racist" was the question whether blacks were "hard working," and nearly two thirds of Tea Party respondents answered in the affirmative. Claiming an entire organization is racist because a bare third have some racist beliefs is silly.

The Tea Party may be home to more racists than some other demographic groups, but the evidence you presented simply fails to demonstrate that the "Tea Party is racist."

I would tend to say that asking "are blacks hardworking?" can only get racist answers. No? Oh, you're a racist for making a blanket statement about a group of people based only on race. Yes? Oh, you're a racist for making a blanket statement about a group of people based only on race.

It's like asking "do your parents know you're gay?" in high school. All answers will lead to ridicule, even if you're so clever as to respond "I refuse to answer that because I'm not gay."

that whites have privileges not accorded blacks, that political process favors whites, that hiring practices favor whites

White guy Tim Wise makes a fairly cogent argument that it is the case here (mostly that distribution of historical privilege was towards whites so as to quell class consciousness). He also points out that the stimulus bill distributed money disproportionately to industries with white ownership and membership such as the construction industry.

The Tea Party being full of racists doesn't make it a racist organization. The Democratiic and Republican parties are full of racists, and they shouldn't be considered racists organzations for the same reason, none of these parties are organized.

The Tea Party being full of racists doesn't make it a racist organization. The Democratiic and Republican parties are full of racists, and they shouldn't be considered racists organzations for the same reason, none of these parties are organized.

This precisely. The Tea Party is not even really one thing, but several different loose-knit organizations. Good point about the Dem/GOp as well the GOP and Democratic parties almost certainly don't keep up to date member lists and have no real power to expel members. In most states your party registration is between you and your county clerk and all that is required to be "officially associated with the X Party" is to register as a voter under that party's banner.

Even during the Civil Rights era I wouldn't say the Democratic party was racist. Did many of its politicians support racist policies? Absolutely, and so did many of its voters. However a lot of Northern Democrats were no more or less racist than Republicans in the North at that time, and many Northern Democrats did not take place in the filibusters to block Civil Rights legislation and etc...so it's hard to even call the 1960s era Democratic party a racist part.

Using the phrase "full of racists" is misleading. While there may be more racists in the Democratic party than the Tea Party, there are probably proportionally fewer. In neither instance would they form a plurality from what I'd guess, so the term "full" is suspicious.

The Tea Party being full of racists doesn't make it a racist organization. The Democratiic and Republican parties are full of racists, and they shouldn't be considered racists organzations for the same reason, none of these parties are organized.

Perhaps I should have said, "racist movement." A movement it certainly is. Granted, the Tea Party is not (yet) a single coherent organization.

Establish a base line for racism, according to your perspective. Mine is growing up in 1950's Texas, where my grandfather drove a segregated bus. That sort of institutional, commonly accepted racism is gone. Racism is not socially acceptable, many of us find it hard to believe that it ever was.

Case in point: an elderly close male relative, observing a black man making a dumb traffic move. Bitches about the way "those people" drive. (Says the same thing about women drivers, but that's a whole different kettle of piranha.) I prod, once again, and get the similar response: he's not racist, he just doesn't like how those people drive.

Conservative? Yes, rather, just to the left of Calvin Coolidge. Racist? By my lights, yes, suspicious and distrustful of persons of color, as a general thing. But support the suppression of black voting rights, or support unequal treatment in hiring, etc.? Nope. Not a chance.

Racism of the kind that forms my perspective is done for, no longer socially acceptable. We've come to an odd place of transition, where no one will admit to being racist, but not all of us are willing to confront the racism in ourselves. When we do finally succeed in getting the legal structures in place to ensure equality, that battle will still remain.

Conservatives resist change, they can't help it, its what they are. Racial and sexual equality is change. If black people always had legal equality, they would not seek to change that, they are not racists. They are not racists, they are conservatives. Not one of them in a hundred would apply the term to themselves, but would slap that label upon, say, affirmative action in a heartbeat, because "racist" is a pejorative, even for them.

So, anyway, from my perspective, is the Tea Party racist? No, not really, not like I think of racism. And that's not an onion on my belt, its a fanny pack, so shut up, puppy!

Establish a base line for racism, according to your perspective. Mine is growing up in 1950's Texas, where my grandfather drove a segregated bus. That sort of institutional, commonly accepted racism is gone. Racism is not socially acceptable, many of us find it hard to believe that it ever was.

Case in point: an elderly close male relative, observing a black man making a dumb traffic move. Bitches about the way "those people" drive. (Says the same thing about women drivers, but that's a whole different kettle of piranha.) I prod, once again, and get the similar response: he's not racist, he just doesn't like how those people drive.

Conservative? Yes, rather, just to the left of Calvin Coolidge. Racist? By my lights, yes, suspicious and distrustful of persons of color, as a general thing. But support the suppression of black voting rights, or support unequal treatment in hiring, etc.? Nope. Not a chance.

Racism of the kind that forms my perspective is done for, no longer socially acceptable. We've come to an odd place of transition, where no one will admit to being racist, but not all of us are willing to confront the racism in ourselves. When we do finally succeed in getting the legal structures in place to ensure equality, that battle will still remain.

Conservatives resist change, they can't help it, its what they are. Racial and sexual equality is change. If black people always had legal equality, they would not seek to change that, they are not racists. They are not racists, they are conservatives. Not one of them in a hundred would apply the term to themselves, but would slap that label upon, say, affirmative action in a heartbeat, because "racist" is a pejorative, even for them.

So, anyway, from my perspective, is the Tea Party racist? No, not really, not like I think of racism. And that's not an onion on my belt, its a fanny pack, so shut up, puppy!

But, that "elderly close male relative" you speak of, who is racist by your lights, he's the Tea Party.

Establish a base line for racism, according to your perspective. Mine is growing up in 1950's Texas, where my grandfather drove a segregated bus. That sort of institutional, commonly accepted racism is gone. Racism is not socially acceptable, many of us find it hard to believe that it ever was.

Case in point: an elderly close male relative, observing a black man making a dumb traffic move. Bitches about the way "those people" drive. (Says the same thing about women drivers, but that's a whole different kettle of piranha.) I prod, once again, and get the similar response: he's not racist, he just doesn't like how those people drive.

Conservative? Yes, rather, just to the left of Calvin Coolidge. Racist? By my lights, yes, suspicious and distrustful of persons of color, as a general thing. But support the suppression of black voting rights, or support unequal treatment in hiring, etc.? Nope. Not a chance.

Racism of the kind that forms my perspective is done for, no longer socially acceptable. We've come to an odd place of transition, where no one will admit to being racist, but not all of us are willing to confront the racism in ourselves. When we do finally succeed in getting the legal structures in place to ensure equality, that battle will still remain.

Conservatives resist change, they can't help it, its what they are. Racial and sexual equality is change. If black people always had legal equality, they would not seek to change that, they are not racists. They are not racists, they are conservatives. Not one of them in a hundred would apply the term to themselves, but would slap that label upon, say, affirmative action in a heartbeat, because "racist" is a pejorative, even for them.

So, anyway, from my perspective, is the Tea Party racist? No, not really, not like I think of racism. And that's not an onion on my belt, its a fanny pack, so shut up, puppy!

This is an excellent post that I would have made myself, if I were a bit more eloquent.

The only thing I have to add is that calling the Tea Party movement racist serves absolutely no purpose at all, except to dilute the meaning of the word.

The first thing the Tea Party did was all this birther nonsense. That in and of itself is based on racism: Obama looks different, so he must be from somewhere else. If that was not the logic, it would have applied to McCain.

The same can be said about the whole Muslim thing. So that's two tactics that they used which are flat out racism.

The first thing the Tea Party did was all this birther nonsense. That in and of itself is based on racism: Obama looks different, so he must be from somewhere else. If that was not the logic, it would have applied to McCain.

The same can be said about the whole Muslim thing. So that's two tactics that they used which are flat out racism.

There's racism (he looks different from us and has a strange name, so he must be from somewhere else) and then there's racism (those people shouldn't be allowed to vote, those people are barbarians, those people should all be killed). For the first type, the term racism is interchangeable with tribalism (us vs. the outsiders). The second type doesn't have an equivalent term. Calling the tea party racist is like calling pest control workers killers. Sure, the term could be literally true, but using it doesn't serve any real purpose, except to piss off the subject of the label.

Not even tea partiers want to be called racists, because racism is universally agreed to be a BAD THING. The tea party is a tax protest movement first, a cultural conservative movement second, and a republican partisan movement third.

The birthers were active even before the 2008 election.
The Tea Party was formed as a reaction against taxes and big government in early 2009. Saying that the "first thing" a group did was to have a few of its members, (hardly anything resembling a majority of either the leadership or the membership at large), join a separate movement of silliness is a real stretch.

The tea party is a tax protest movement first, a cultural conservative movement second, and a republican partisan movement third.

This might make sense if there was a massive tax increase that sparked the movement. Obama has raised nobody's taxes, so the notion that it's a tax protest movement doesn't make sense to me.

The Tea Party was a creation of the Koch Brothers designed to demonize the Obama presidency from Day One. A lot of people jumped in enthusiastically because they don't like the notion of a black president. Others came in because they're Republican partisans.

Are they a racist movement? At least partially. They certainly tolerate some pretty blatant racist behavior at their rallies. They're just the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party. One doesn't necessarily have to be a racist to be a right wing Republican, but one nearly has to be a right wing Republican to be racist.

This might make sense if there was a massive tax increase that sparked the movement. Obama has raised nobody's taxes, so the notion that it's a tax protest movement doesn't make sense to me.

By this definition, the Civil Rights movement of the early 1960s could not be called a protest movement because there were no new laws enacted suppressing civil rights at that time.

"Tax protest" is shorthand for a more complex set of issues, but since their own rallying cry was centered on the iconic tax protest of the Boston Tea Party, it generally works to identify the movement.

By this definition, the Civil Rights movement of the early 1960s could not be called a protest movement because there were no new laws enacted suppressing civil rights at that time.

"Tax protest" is shorthand for a more complex set of issues, but since their own rallying cry was centered on the iconic tax protest of the Boston Tea Party, it generally works to identify the movement.

So they were protesting that there are any taxes? Tax rates are at historic lows. Why on earth would they be protesting taxes? And would they have been protesting taxes if say Biden had been elected? I think not.

So they were protesting that there are any taxes? Tax rates are at historic lows. Why on earth would they be protesting taxes? And would they have been protesting taxes if say Biden had been elected? I think not.

By this definition, the Civil Rights movement of the early 1960s could not be called a protest movement because there were no new laws enacted suppressing civil rights at that time.

But the tea party had every right to protest just as loudly in the early 2000s but chose not to even when the country was lead by people going on the record as saying that deficits don't matter. In fact there was orders of magnitude less protests of the sort during that time period.

Whereas the civil rights movement was constrained by safety rather than not caring about the subject, and the movement was more gradual in growth than simply popping up overnight in response to a partisan victory.

But the tea party had every right to protest just as loudly in the early 2000s but chose not to even when the country was lead by people going on the record as saying that deficits don't matter. In fact there was orders of magnitude less protests of the sort during that time period.

All that proves is that proto-Tea Partires were tolerant of Republican fiscal sloppiness, but when it was Democrats doing it, they evolved into full fledged TPers.

The racism of the 1960s, which Republicans would dearly love to return to, was still quite insidious. Blacks were kept from voting under the ruse of citizenship tests administered at polling sites, lunch counters and buses were segregated, interracial marriage was taboo in many areas and illegal in some, discrimination in housing and hiring was widespread. The 1960s movement was entirely justified. Contrast it to the Teabaggers who hate government spending when a Democrat is in office and who couldn't tolerate the surplus left by Bill Clinton. They're just a bunch of petulant whiners who want something for nothing, showing up to protest government healthcare while rolling up in their Medicare-furnished Rascals and hooked up to Medicare-furnished oxygen tanks. Bunch of hypocrites and racists.

The racism of the 1960s, which Republicans would dearly love to return to, was still quite insidious. Blacks were kept from voting under the ruse of citizenship tests administered at polling sites, lunch counters and buses were segregated, interracial marriage was taboo in many areas and illegal in some, discrimination in housing and hiring was widespread. The 1960s movement was entirely justified. Contrast it to the Teabaggers who hate government spending when a Democrat is in office and who couldn't tolerate the surplus left by Bill Clinton. They're just a bunch of petulant whiners who want something for nothing, showing up to protest government healthcare while rolling up in their Medicare-furnished Rascals and hooked up to Medicare-furnished oxygen tanks. Bunch of hypocrites...

You're just setting the bar so high that it can't possibly be cleared. It seems that you want a signed affadavit from each and every person who's ever been at a Tea Party rally stating that they are indeed racists and that is their primary motivation. As long as >0.0000001% of Tea Partiers cannot conclusively be shown to be racist, or there is at least one black present in any rally, then they are completely absolved of any responsibility for their inflammatory and racist rhetoric.

But the tea party had every right to protest just as loudly in the early 2000s but chose not to even when the country was lead by people going on the record as saying that deficits don't matter. In fact there was orders of magnitude less protests of the sort during that time period.

This, of course, assumes that the Tea Party membership is sufficently aware of reality to know that taxes were that low. For much of the rank-and-file, I doubt this is true.

This also ignores two other aspects of the situation:

1. There was a lot of resistance to where the money was being spent, regardless whether it was at curreently low rates. TARP, proposals to bail out GM, Chrysler, and numerous banks for being "too big to fail," and other expenditures were protested in a less organized fashion even before the 2008 election. It was only after a Democrat was elected president with an increase in Democrat power in Congress that the Koch brothers decided to fund it as a movement. I have seen no evidence that they would have acted any differently if Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden or any other Democrat had been elected president.

2. The objections to spending on many issues had arisen on the far Right of the Republican Party as early as his first term. If one failed to notice that, then one was simply not paying attention. The rumblings that began over deficit spending increased in volume and expanded futher through the Republican Party throughout GWB's second term.* When the power shifted to the Democrats, the people holding those views were able to recruit a lot more people from within their party to join them. (Remember, even now the Tea Party is a fringe on the Right of the Republicans. The number of Republican objectors, then, was small, (though loud), but the number of Tea Party people, now, is small, (though loud).)

None of that indicates that the movement, in general, is inspired by racism. Certainly, racists who hate Obama for his skin color are going to see the swelling publicity of the Tea Party and join it--and they did. But claims that no one on the Right cared about the deficits before Obama was elected are simply false.

* The Cato Institute criticized Bush for spending as early as his first year in office. George Will had already begun the complaints as early as 2004. Vichard Viugueri's book, Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause was published in 2006 and in the same year William F. Buckley attacked Bush as a big spender. Vigueri is not well known outside his particular circle of readers, but anyone who missed complaints by the Cato Institute, Will, or Buckley is really just not paying attention to the voices of the far Right.

You're just setting the bar so high that it can't possibly be cleared. It seems that you want a signed affadavit from each and every person who's ever been at a Tea Party rally stating that they are indeed racists and that is their primary motivation. As long as >0.0000001% of Tea Partiers cannot conclusively be shown to be racist, or there is at least one black present in any rally, then they are completely absolved of any responsibility for their inflammatory and racist rhetoric.

Not at all. You're making the leap from "they hate Democrats" to "they hate blacks". I have no doubt that many TPers are racist. But the movement isn't characterized by racism and racism isn't a necessary part of its being.

This, of course, assumes that the Tea Party membership is sufficently aware of reality to know that taxes were that low. For much of the rank-and-file, I doubt this is true.

That's a good point

Quote:

2. The objections to spending on many issues had arisen on the far Right of the Republican Party as early as his first term. If one failed to notice that, then one was simply not paying attention.

Of course there were. But like I said, it was orders of magnitude less.

Quote:

None of that indicates that the movement, in general, is inspired by racism.

I wasn't trying to defend the claim that it's inspired by racism, I was responding to the proposition that it was primarily a tax protest. The simplest explanation is that it is primarily partisan, with incidental racist and tax components to it.

On February 19, 2009,[55] in a broadcast from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, CNBC Business News editor Rick Santelli criticized the government plan to refinance mortgages, which had just been announced the day before. He said that those plans were "promoting bad behavior"[56] by "subsidizing losers' mortgages". He suggested holding a tea party for traders to gather and dump the derivatives in the Chicago River on July 1.[57][58][59] A number of the floor traders around him cheered on his proposal, to the amusement of the hosts in the studio. Santelli's "rant" became a viral video after being featured on the Drudge Report.[60]
Overnight, websites such as ChicagoTeaParty.com (registered in August 2008 by Chicagoan Zack Christenson, radio producer for conservative talk show host Milt Rosenberg,) were live within 12 hours.[61] About 10 hours after Santelli's remarks, reTeaParty.com was bought to coordinate Tea Parties scheduled for Independence Day and, as of March 4, was reported to be receiving 11,000 visitors a day.[61]
According to The New Yorker writer Ben McGrath[55] and New York Times reporter Kate Zernike,[45] this is where the movement was first inspired to coalesce under the collective banner of "Tea Party". By the next day, guests on Fox News had already begun to mention this new "Tea Party".[62]

It didn't stay a supply-side party very long, did it? That "Taxed Enough Already" slogan seems to have faded pretty fast, into a background of incoherent screams.

I think it was largely promoted and funded by traditional supply side neo-cons who wanted to see a disfunctional congress, and succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. They targeted the ignorant and naturally succeeded in attracting the people who would compose the overly 'racist' element. It is a coalition of the disaffected.

I feel sorry for all the mal-aligned conservative blacks/Cubans/Mexicans/Samoans/Egyptians/Tanzanians/Koreans, et al, that have effectively been called racist, along with conservative Caucasians, by the ignorant, circular reasoning of this OP.
I should know better and stay away from these regressively intelligent discussions.

No, but Black Nationalists, Black Separatists, and the Nation of Islam sure as hell are racists. (And KlanWatch keeps tabs on them as hate groups, same as on the Klan, etc.) As for black Tea Partiers . . . not enough of them to discuss, are there?

ST's vBulletin 3 Responsive Styles

Our newly refreshed styles in 2017, brings the old vb3 to the new level, responsive and modern feel. It comes with 3 colors with or without sidebar, fixed sized or fluid. Default vbulletin 3 style made responsive also available in the pack.
Purchase Our Style Pack Now